Remember to also update test/unit/python/book/README with information about what was changed.
-- Anders Fri Dec 12 2014 at 4:31:41 PM skrev Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected] >: > Sure. However with dof renumbering nobody should actually do that, you > could just make a note about that too. > > On 12 December 2014 at 16:26, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok, make sense. >> >> The alternative syntax would here be to use arange from numpy. >> >> b2 = b[arange(0, b.local_size(), 2)] >> >> Johan >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> The policy is to avoid it if possible. However I think this is a good >>> case. >>> It's a while since 1.0 now, some things will have to change over time. >>> >>> Just keep the line commented out, and add a comment like >>> # This feature has been removed because it is unsafe in parallel: >>> or something like that. Even better would be to add an alternative >>> formulation, but I don't think that line makes much sense anyway? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> On 12 December 2014 at 16:13, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> I am about to push the numpy index access for GenericVectors. As >>>> previously discussed I will remove support for slicing access. This breaks >>>> one book example. What is the policy for that? That was the whole point of >>>> having these tests there. >>>> >>>> def test_p51_box_2(): >>>> b = Vector(mpi_comm_world(), 10) >>>> c = Vector(mpi_comm_world(), 10) >>>> b_copy = b[:] >>>> b[:] = c >>>> b[b < 0] = 0 >>>> b2 = b[::2] >>>> >>>> The last line wont work. >>>> >>>> Johan >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fenics mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics >>>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
